Demographics of incoming med school classes

[el_duderino]

---

Members don't see this ad.

One thing I'm finding remarkable is the number of incoming classes where women outnumber men. Discuss.

I was just noticing that and talking to my SO about it. I wonder how the applicant pool breaks down by gender. I'm on my phone so it's difficult to research. I'd like to see a Table 25 for gender if that exists.

 

[DermViser]

One thing I'm finding remarkable is the number of incoming classes where women outnumber men. Discuss.

Not at all shocked. Men for quite a while now, have seen how medicine has changed and see the ROI as much lower when you can go much farther in other fields with respect to ROI. As medicine becomes more feminized it's helpful to know that more of those women end up working part-time, and go on the mommy track. Bc some places are desperate for doctors, they have to change their requirements to accomodate.

 

[el_duderino]

Oh I found it. About 54% of applicants and 52% of matriculants are female. Very interesting. I don't want to make too many assumptions about why some of these classes are skewed even more than that towards females, but the adcoms must be seeing something in them they're not seeing as much of from males....

 

[DermViser]

Possibly. For example, top MBA programs will never take someone straight out of college without work experience. The training path in business is also way, way shorter though. I count my lucky stars every day that I was able to slip by without this being the case.

That's bc an MBA actually builds on actual work experience.

 

[Greenberg702]

That's bc an MBA actually builds on actual work experience.

You don't think an MD builds on well-developed life experiences that can only be gained after college?

 

[EMDO2018]

One thing I'm finding remarkable is the number of incoming classes where women outnumber men. Discuss.

Women aren't a disadvantaged group anymore, especially in academics. 98% Girls in HS are told they are smart and to go to college, about 40% of boys are told this, the other 60% are told to play sports try to make it to the pros or work for their dads plumbing company or something.

 

[DermViser]

You don't think an MD builds on well-developed life experiences that can only be gained after college?

An MBA isn't a solitary degree that holds up on its own. If you have no work experience, you won't have any idea the importance of the projects done in the MBA program are for. It's an ancillary degree.

 

[allantois]

One thing I'm finding remarkable is the number of incoming classes where women outnumber men. Discuss.

Girls are graduating high schools with higher GPA than boys. They also have higher GPA in college. There is data that shows that boys are not held to the same standards as girls in college admissions. Women are now receiving the majority of bachelor degrees as well as master, and PhD degrees. Now they only need to also become the majority of recipients of professional degrees, and they will.

http://www.russellsage.org/blog/ris...ng-womens-rapid-gains-educational-achievement

 

[Deadlifts]

Women aren't a disadvantaged group anymore, especially in academics. 98% Girls in HS are told they are smart and to go to college, about 40% of boys are told this, the other 60% are told to play sports try to make it to the pros or work for their dads plumbing company or something.

Strong stats.

 

[goft20]

Welp, I know where I am not applying next year.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Narmerguy]

I agree that it is weird to take a general position against gap years. I also believe it is equally weird to be a gap year evangelist. We all follow our individual paths in life. I would never be so presumptuous to think that what worked for me is what's best for everyone. We are all different, with different needs and wants. I personally am so happy that I never listened to the many voices telling me to "slow down", "enjoy life". I couldn't be happier with the path I choose.

Admirable. Allow me to throw a couple of your sentences back at you.

Now,


That's exactly the point. Your life also doesn't begin when you take your gap year. Your life begins when you're born. I've always had hobbies, enjoyed what I've done, and pursued a variety of interesting activities. I studied abroad for a semester (even did some "backpacking" in Europe like the other poster). I partied in college and watched TV shows during my free time. I pursued a big 3 consulting gig in NYC over one summer. To somehow block off this chunk of your life called college and to insinuate that you couldn't have possibly lived or enjoyed your hobbies or pursued your interests during this time is ridiculous.


That's true. When I was at Wash U they told us that the acceptance rates between trads and non-trads were virtually identical (a very slight advantage for trads but this could be because some non-trads have a hole that they need to plug in their app.)
I'm not telling anyone to not take time off, I'm just saying to back off of us who didn't.



In my experience, the opposite is true. I was constantly pushed to "explore myself" or to take some time off in the "real world" (as if I hadn't already). I know myself better than anyone else on the planet and if I'm absolutely positive that medicine is the career for me, I don't want anyone to keep putting roadblocks in my path. This is just an example of the "adult-child" phenomenon described by the other poster. People always think they know you better than you know yourself. Ridiculous.

I like how you cherry picked my quote and left off the very next sentence where I said "Similarly, it's not for us to judge people who have chosen not to take any time off."

Let's not get carried away with what's being said here. I did not say that you cannot live while you're in college, or that you do not grow during that time. In fact, my reasons for supporting gap years is very similar to my reasons for supporting medical school as a post-graduate degree rather than one where you enter straight out of high school. Most people need time to develop, to season, to figure things out. Some people mature at an early age and figure everything out when they're quite young. That's unusual, and most people grow more mature and developed with time. If this belief makes me an "evangelist" that's fine, I don't think I'm preaching something crazy or dangerous here.

My point is simply that I think it's nice that more people are either availing themselves of the option to take time off, or schools are recognizing that these students bring many benefits to the table, or some combination thereof. I'm also someone to whom people frequently told to slow down, and I think most of them were wrong in that I was never in danger of burning out. I like working hard and pushing myself. However, I've discovered that there were other benefits that my gap years brought me that I actually really do appreciate and that I'm glad I've figured out before starting medical school. Gap years aren't necessarily about working less or abandoning one's ambition, though some people surely take it that way and that's their choice. For me, it was about allowing myself to be pushed and challenged in ways that were new to me and that I had a safe space and time for rather than in medical school or college where I felt like I was constantly "on". It was about giving myself a diverse set of new experiences that I simply didn't have in undergrad but I surely do now.

Many people would take this option over just blazing through the most grueling training they'll likely ever face. What many of us are saying is: you don't have to do it the "traditional" way--and in fact, you'll find that there are many enriching personal and perhaps professional rewards that can come from allowing yourself time to explore.

 

[Lamel]

One thing I'm finding remarkable is the number of incoming classes where women outnumber men. Discuss.

I am willing to bet that the modern zeitgeist on female empowerment has something to do with this as well; women are becoming more empowered, independent, and are willing to further "prove" how they can succeed in anything, which I think is a great thing.

 

[LizzyM]

Girls are graduating high schools with higher GPA than boys. They also have higher GPA in college. There is data that shows that boys are not held to the same standards as girls in college admissions. Women are now receiving the majority of bachelor degrees as well as master, and PhD degrees. Now they only need to also become the majority of recipients of professional degrees, and they will.

http://www.russellsage.org/blog/ris...ng-womens-rapid-gains-educational-achievement

My interest is less about why it is happening but the consequences (not saying more women is a plus or a minus, just how will this play out?) . Given the predilection for women to be less savvy negotiators and/or to accept lower wages from employers than men will accept for the same work, and a more frequent desire when compared with men to work a lighter load for which they are paid less than those working a heavier schedule (even if both are "full time"), I think that over the next 2 decades we will see a decline in physician wages. This may serve to make medicine a less attractive career. It may also cause medicine to be considered "women's work" and therefore less desirable to male candidates.

 

[Lawpy]

This makes me think that eventually, and maybe very, very soon, coming straight from college will seem like a hidden disadvantage. Sorta like not having any research. You can obviously get in without any research, but almost everyone has it, so it's almost like you should too...

You don't need research for most of the schools (unless you're aiming for Top 20s). Having research in that case is always a plus, but not having any isn't punishable. So research isn't a hidden checkbox.

 

[LizzyM]

You don't need research for most of the schools (unless you're aiming for Top 20s). Having research in that case is always a plus, but not having any isn't punishable. So research isn't a hidden checkbox.

Yet 70-85% of all matriculants to every school have research per the MSAR.

 

[Lawpy]

Yet 70-85% of all matriculants to every school have research per the MSAR.

There's various reasons for that. Maybe they like research. Maybe they're aiming for the top but their low MCAT/low GPA blindsided them. Maybe they are applying broadly. Maybe they're adding something mediocre like dishwashing or random gel protocols as research. Maybe they're including lab TAs as research. Same with a summer of research vs year-long research. Along with senior theses. Lots of reasons here.

 

[Omppu27]

You don't need research for most of the schools (unless you're aiming for Top 20s). Having research in that case is always a plus, but not having any isn't punishable. So research isn't a hidden checkbox.

I agree that research is more important for top tier schools than other schools. However, if you look at MSAR, even schools like Marshall, Rosalind Franklin, and The Commonwealth all have 80+ % of their matriculating class with research/lab experience.

 

[allantois]

I like how you cherry picked my quote and left off the very next sentence where I said "Similarly, it's not for us to judge people who have chosen not to take any time off."


My point is simply that I think it's nice that more people are either availing themselves of the option to take time off, or schools are recognizing that these students bring many benefits to the table, or some combination thereof. I'm also someone to whom people frequently told to slow down, and I think most of them were wrong in that I was never in danger of burning out. I like working hard and pushing myself. However, I've discovered that there were other benefits that my gap years brought me that I actually really do appreciate and that I'm glad I've figured out before starting medical school. Gap years aren't necessarily about working less or abandoning one's ambition, though some people surely take it that way and that's their choice. For me, it was about allowing myself to be pushed and challenged in ways that were new to me and that I had a safe space and time for rather than in medical school or college where I felt like I was constantly "on". It was about giving myself a diverse set of new experiences that I simply didn't have in undergrad but I surely do now.

Many people would take this option over just blazing through the most grueling training they'll likely ever face. What many of us are saying is: you don't have to do it the "traditional" way--and in fact, you'll find that there are many enriching personal and perhaps professional rewards that can come from allowing yourself time to explore.

Your point has been revolving around the idea that yes it's up to no one to judge whether you decide to take gap years or not, HOWEVER most people will always benefit from them and med schools will think more highly of those applicants.

This discussion of gap years with throwing one's own experiences is meaningless. No one is arguing that everyone is on their own path to medicine, but that's not what you are saying - you are simply advocating for gap years for everyone.

 

[LizzyM]

I agree that research is more important for top tier schools than other schools. However, if you look at MSAR, even schools like Marshall, Rosalind Franklin, and The Commonwealth all have 80+ % of their matriculating class with research/lab experience.

Most med students were science majors. Almost all science majors do some kind of research for credit or for pay, or just because they like it. There you have it!

 

[Lawpy]

I agree that research is more important for top tier schools than other schools. However, if you look at MSAR, even schools like Marshall, Rosalind Franklin, and The Commonwealth all have 80+ % of their matriculating class with research/lab experience.

Yeah see above. Research is a very broad category and can include stuff that isn't supposed to be classified as research to begin with.

Your point has been revolving around the idea that yes it's up to no one to judge whether you decide to take gap years or not, HOWEVER most people will always benefit from them and med schools will think more highly of those applicants.
This discussion of gap years with throwing one's own experiences is meaningless. No one is arguing that everyone is on their own path to medicine, but that's not what you are saying - you are simply advocating for gap years for everyone.

I think there's a lot of criticism regarding gap years and their lack of productivity (which is utter nonsense) and @Narmerguy was simply disproving them.

 

[Greenberg702]

My interest is less about why it is happening but the consequences (not saying more women is a plus or a minus, just how will this play out?) . Given the predilection for women to be less savvy negotiators and/or to accept lower wages from employers than men will accept for the same work, and a more frequent desire when compared with men to work a lighter load for which they are paid less than those working a heavier schedule (even if both are "full time"), I think that over the next 2 decades we will see a decline in physician wages. This may serve to make medicine a less attractive career. It may also cause medicine to be considered "women's work" and therefore less desirable to male candidates.

Hmm. I think it's difficult to make a blanket statement about "medicine" becoming less attractive because of the influx of women. More likely, certain female-dominated specialties will become less desirable (OB-Gyn is already like this). In terms of the wage gap between men and women, I think that at least in medicine, this can be attributed to amount of time spent working (full time vs part time). At least according to the surveys I've seen, men and women with the same amount of experience and who work the same number of hours make the same salary. This may not be true in other fields, however. The desire of women to "work a lighter load for which they are paid less than those working a heavier schedule" may result in increased discrimination against women in certain surgical specialties (like neurosurgery) where such preferences are not admired.

 

[LizzyM]

Yeah see above. Research is a very broad category and can include stuff that isn't supposed to be classified as research to begin with.

I suspect it is anyone who had an "experience" labeled as "research" as that is a really easy way to sort through the 20K matriculants and determine what proportion had research experience.

 

[Omppu27]

There's various reasons for that. Maybe they like research. Maybe they're aiming for the top but their low MCAT/low GPA blindsided them. Maybe they are applying broadly. Maybe they're adding something mediocre like dishwashing or random gel protocols as research. Maybe they're including lab TAs as research. Same with a summer of research vs year-long research. Along with senior theses. Lots of reasons here.

Most med students were science majors. Almost all science majors do some kind of research for credit or for pay, or just because they like it. There you have it!

Oops! didn't see these before making my post!

 

[Lawpy]

I suspect it is anyone who had an "experience" labeled as "research" as that is a really easy way to sort through the 20K matriculants and determine what proportion had research experience.

So from this "general" definition, the large fraction of those matriculated at every school who has "research" is likely inflated. Which means, research isn't a hidden checkbox. I'm surprised the adcoms there didn't see through these experiences. This is similar to embellishing (or flat out lying) volunteering experiences

 

[LizzyM]

Hmm. I think it's difficult to make a blanket statement about "medicine" becoming less attractive because of the influx of women. More likely, certain female-dominated specialties will become less desirable (OB-Gyn is already like this). In terms of the wage gap between men and women, I think that at least in medicine, this can be attributed to amount of time spent working (full time vs part time). At least according to the surveys I've seen, men and women with the same amount of experience and who work the same number of hours make the same salary. This may not be true in other fields, however. The desire of women to "work a lighter load for which they are paid less than those working a heavier schedule" may result in increased discrimination against women in certain surgical specialties (like neurosurgery) where such preferences are not admired.

What I am saying is that 30 years from now,it is possible that undergrads looking for careers will not choose "medicine" because it will be a relatively low paying career dominated by women. Some specialties may still be predominately male (urology will be the last hold out) but most undergrads will not see things at that level of detail. Medicine is already a low paying, female-dominated profession in Russia.

 

[LizzyM]

So from this "general" definition, the large fraction of those matriculated at every school who has "research" is likely inflated. Which means, research isn't a hidden checkbox. I'm surprised the adcoms there didn't see through these experiences. This is similar to embellishing (or flat out lying) volunteering experiences

There is nothing inflated about the proportion of matriculants who list "research" on their application. Are you trying to say that what gets called "research" may be a very minimal experience. Yes, that is possible. It may be as little as 6 hrs/wk for a 15 week semester, 90 hours. That doesn't mean that the proportion of medical students who listed research on the application is inflated.

 

[Lawpy]

There is nothing inflated about the proportion of matriculants who list "research" on their application. Are you trying to say that what gets called "research" may be a very minimal experience. Yes, that is possible. It may be as little as 6 hrs/wk for a 15 week semester, 90 hours. That doesn't mean that the proportion of medical students who listed research on the application is inflated.

It's "inflated" in the sense that these experiences aren't truly research from the strict sense, and gives the false notion that schools with the highest fraction of matriculants with research make research as a requirement.

 

[allantois]

What I am saying is that 30 years from now,it is possible that undergrads looking for careers will not choose "medicine" because it will be a relatively low paying career dominated by women. Some specialties may still be predominately male (urology will be the last hold out) but most undergrads will not see things at that level of detail. Medicine is already a low paying, female-dominated profession in Russia.

I was just going to cite Russia as a country where the majority of doctors are female. I wonder if the fact that there are more women graduating with degrees such as PhDs and JDs had anything to do with the decline on ROI in faculty positions at universities as well as legal careers. Does the scarce of women in engineering account for the fact that engineers are still well off unlike professions where women have made their way in?

Disclaimer: I am by no means advocating for restricting women from entering any professions.

 

[Greenberg702]

I like how you cherry picked my quote and left off the very next sentence where I said "Similarly, it's not for us to judge people who have chosen not to take any time off."

Let's not get carried away with what's being said here. I did not say that you cannot live while you're in college, or that you do not grow during that time. In fact, my reasons for supporting gap years is very similar to my reasons for supporting medical school as a post-graduate degree rather than one where you enter straight out of high school. Most people need time to develop, to season, to figure things out. Some people mature at an early age and figure everything out when they're quite young. That's unusual, and most people grow more mature and developed with time. If this belief makes me an "evangelist" that's fine, I don't think I'm preaching something crazy or dangerous here.

My point is simply that I think it's nice that more people are either availing themselves of the option to take time off, or schools are recognizing that these students bring many benefits to the table, or some combination thereof. I'm also someone to whom people frequently told to slow down, and I think most of them were wrong in that I was never in danger of burning out. I like working hard and pushing myself. However, I've discovered that there were other benefits that my gap years brought me that I actually really do appreciate and that I'm glad I've figured out before starting medical school. Gap years aren't necessarily about working less or abandoning one's ambition, though some people surely take it that way and that's their choice. For me, it was about allowing myself to be pushed and challenged in ways that were new to me and that I had a safe space and time for rather than in medical school or college where I felt like I was constantly "on". It was about giving myself a diverse set of new experiences that I simply didn't have in undergrad but I surely do now.

Many people would take this option over just blazing through the most grueling training they'll likely ever face. What many of us are saying is: you don't have to do it the "traditional" way--and in fact, you'll find that there are many enriching personal and perhaps professional rewards that can come from allowing yourself time to explore.

I'm glad you found it enriching. If we can all agree that everybody has their own goals and that no one path is better than another, then I don't see a problem. Like I said, I have friends who are doing absolutely incredible stuff during their gap years, and I think that's absolutely fantastic. All I'm saying is that we should stop one-uping each other and respect people's choices, whatever they may be. This may be a wild analogy but this reminded me a little bit of the MD vs DO flame wars where the DOs claim they're superior because their MD curriculum + OMM > MD curriculum. Different doesn't necessary imply better and I'm not saying that my choice to go straight through is "better" than anyone else's choices. It's certainly not worse, however.

 

[plumazul]

One thing I'm finding remarkable is the number of incoming classes where women outnumber men. Discuss.

I believe that in the aggregate, the percentage of women has been declining over the past few years.

Here's the numbers (Percentage of Female Enrollment in U.S. Medical Schools by year) :

2006 48.55%
2007 48.34%
2008 47.98%
2009 47.79%
2010 47.44%
2011 47.15%
2012 46.83%
2013 46.66%

Not a good trend.

 

[EMDO2018]

Girls are graduating high schools with higher GPA than boys. They also have higher GPA in college. There is data that shows that boys are not held to the same standards as girls in college admissions. Women are now receiving the majority of bachelor degrees as well as master, and PhD degrees. Now they only need to also become the majority of recipients of professional degrees, and they will.

http://www.russellsage.org/blog/rise-women-seven-charts-showing-womens-rapid-gains-educational-achievement

Here's the numbers (Total Female Enrollment in U.S. Medical Schools by year) :

2006 48.55%
2007 48.34%
2008 47.98%
2009 47.79%
2010 47.44%
2011 47.15%
2012 46.83%
2013 46.66%

Not a good trend.

Honestly, almost every female premed I knew in undergrad is a nurse now. Even the smart ones who had 3.8gpa+, chose to do nursing school. Probably a reflection of the economy.

 

[Greenberg702]

What I am saying is that 30 years from now,it is possible that undergrads looking for careers will not choose "medicine" because it will be a relatively low paying career dominated by women. Some specialties may still be predominately male (urology will be the last hold out) but most undergrads will not see things at that level of detail. Medicine is already a low paying, female-dominated profession in Russia.

I think that the level of pay is almost certainly unrelated to the demographic changes that are taking place. Medicine is an extremely low-paying profession in Russia because the Russian government does not fund it at nearly the same level as Europe (although Putin has infused a lot more money in recent years). Apart from problems with physician compensation, their facilities, level of technology, and access are also very sub-par (again because this has all collapsed since the Soviet fall).

In the US, reimbursement levels are falling because of budgetary problems and the new political drive to curtail healthcare spending by mistakenly targeting physician compensation. If Medicare slashed everything by 98% next year, we could very well see salary levels fall to Russian standards.

EDIT: It's also important to note that Russia has a 2 tiered system of healthcare delivery. The majority of clinics are "public" (free, funded by the government). A minority are private. Physicians who work in private clinics in Russia actually do make a reasonable amount of money relative to other fields there.

 

[allantois]

I think that the level of pay is almost certainly unrelated to the demographic changes that are taking place. Medicine is an extremely low-paying profession in Russia because the Russian government does not fund it at nearly the same level as Europe (although Putin has infused a lot more money in recent years). Apart from problems with physician compensation, their facilities, level of technology, and access are also very sub-par (again because this has all collapsed since the Soviet fall).

In the US, reimbursement levels are falling because of budgetary problems and the new political drive to curtail healthcare spending by mistakenly targeting physician compensation. If Medicare slashed everything by 98% next year, we could very well see salary levels fall to Russian standards.

It's not just modern Russia, doctors have always been paid extremely poorly during the entire Soviet era. Don't forget that the idea of proletariat implies that the society values those who do hard labor as opposed to intellectual work. You can trust me (as both of my parents were born in the Soviet Union) that doctors still get no respect from people in Russia nor in any of the newly emerged countries.

 

[Greenberg702]

It's not just modern Russia, doctors have always been paid extremely poorly during the entire Soviet era. Don't forget that the idea of proletariat implies that the society values those who do hard labor as opposed to intellectual work. You can trust me (as both of my parents were born in the Soviet Union) that doctors still get no respect from people in Russia nor in any of the newly emerged countries.

Everyone except for athletes and government/military officials was paid extremely poorly during the Soviet era 😛

 

[jb94mg]

I was just going to cite Russia as a country where the majority of doctors are female. I wonder if the fact that there are more women graduating with degrees such as PhDs and JDs had anything to do with the decline on ROI in faculty positions at universities as well as legal careers. Does the scarce of women in engineering account for the fact that engineers are still well off unlike professions where women have made their way in?

Disclaimer: I am by no means advocating for restricting women from entering any professions.

I doubt that. The legal field is saturated. There are more law schools than there needs to be (they're practically begging people to apply so they can make $150k off of them, telling them how great the field is, etc.), and it's not difficult enough to obtain a law degree. One can easily memorize one's way through some joke (typically) degree like political science or criminal justice, get a 4.0, and then go get a law degree. Compare that to medicine - you have to take several pre-req courses that usually weed out a good chunk of people, take an admissions test that's known for being one of the hardest graduate-school admissions tests, get volunteering/clinical exp/research, etc. There's a reason why only graduates of the top law schools are getting good jobs now - those are probably the only graduates who didn't ease their way into some mediocre law school by doing some easy degree in undergrad and getting a mediocre LSAT score.

I think the biggest risk to doctors is something about which DermViser and others have talked on here quite a bit - that is, mid-level care providers moving their way into primary care, doctors losing respect in society as a result of the media criticizing their salaries, etc.

 

[allantois]

I think the biggest risk to doctors is something about which DermViser and others have talked on here quite a bit - that is, mid-level care providers moving their way into primary care, doctors losing respect in society as a result of the media criticizing their salaries, etc.

I wouldn't be surprised if that happens. The people who should be advocating for the profession are sitting on the ivory (quite ironically related to the word Ivy) tower, thinking about what life experiences med school applicants need to get before matriculating and what other skills they can give them (like MPH) before they go into the real world treating patients, hopefully by the time they are 40.

The general public is not appreciative of the fact that their doctor has excelled in epidemiology or backpacked through every country in Europe.


I would also like to bring up a PA who I know got his degree in 2 years (after ugrad, of course) and is now working in the ER 3 days on, 4 days off. He has all the time in the world to "experience life".

 

[Essee]

What did you do during your gap year that led you to enlightenment? Please share.

Sorry I'm being a bit snarky but all these people who say they don't regret taking a gap year are missing not only the loss of pay but they're wasting a year now when they could give that year later and do a whole lot more good.

If you really want to take a gap year for something fulfilling wait until you have a useful skill to give to others. I have friends who spent a couple months in South America fixing cleft palates after residency which is more good than 20 gap years taken by a useless post-bacc. Most of the gap years I hear about are pretty lame. RA or math tutor. Come on. Why not play video games for a year?

This thread has kind of taken off in a different direction since I last posted, but I'll humor this anyways.

I don't feel the need to justify anything to anyone, because my year off was invaluable to me. But I'll humor you. I did something in health policy, which is a passion of mine. But it wasn't what I did for work that I valued the most. I was actually essentially forced into a gap year for personal reasons, despite feeling completely ready and set for medical school. And (hopefully without sounding entitled) I was already a competitive applicant and didn't take the year to beef up my application. And I still don't regret it.

It was the time off from just being out of school for once that gave me a chance while I'm young to do, learn, read, experience things that ultimately made me realize a whole lot about myself and life, and I am completely better off and a better person because of it. Yes many people can do that and learn that insight about themselves in school. But I think being in a school bubble hindered that personal growth for me, and while I probably would have learned those things eventually, especially in the tough world of medicine, I'm glad I know them now. Anyways take what you will from that vague description. I don't expect anyone to understand as it was my personal experience.

But whether it was a waste of time isn't for you to judge. It was valuable to me, and is valuable to many other applicants who appreciated waiting before starting school. Again, you're making it sound like people (premeds) are only worth anything to society if they go be a doctor.

 

[aklark]

What I am saying is that 30 years from now,it is possible that undergrads looking for careers will not choose "medicine" because it will be a relatively low paying career dominated by women. Some specialties may still be predominately male (urology will be the last hold out) but most undergrads will not see things at that level of detail. Medicine is already a low paying, female-dominated profession in Russia.

Urology's not the only hold out. Look at the male/female ratio of other fields like orthopedic surgery vs. pediatrics. Ortho and neurosurg are still like 95% male, while pediatrics and family medicine residents might be majority female. I think this data is the the 2011 Charting the outcomes for all specialties.

I think overall women in medicine is a great thing that is gradually forcing the profession to be more friendly towards families and personal lives. When it was 90% men and trainees were literally "residents" of the hospital, no attention was paid to the spouses or children at home. Now that women have to lobby for maternity leave, childcare options, breaks to pump, etc I think the field is slowly becoming more responsive to the things that happen outside of the workplace. Some people see this move towards salaried employee physicians as a bad thing, but my sense is that most millenials expect this kind of work/life balance and predictability from a career.

I've also never seen any data showing that a male and female physician doing the exact same job make different amounts of money. I think the reported salaries usually reflect the fact that male physicians are more likely to have a lower-wage or non-working spouse than a female who is more keen to work less hours or take on less responsibilities to spend more time with children because her spouse also works in a professional field. If anyone has any data proving this wrong, please post, but these demographic differences always seemed a compelling explanation of the reported earnings difference to me.

 

[LizzyM]

Urology's not the only hold out. Look at the male/female ratio of other fields like orthopedic surgery vs. pediatrics. Ortho and neurosurg are still like 95% male, while pediatrics and family medicine residents might be majority female. I think this data is the the 2011 Charting the outcomes for all specialties.

I think overall women in medicine is a great thing that is gradually forcing the profession to be more friendly towards families and personal lives. When it was 90% men and trainees were literally "residents" of the hospital, no attention was paid to the spouses or children at home. Now that women have to lobby for maternity leave, childcare options, breaks to pump, etc I think the field is slowly becoming more responsive to the things that happen outside of the workplace. Some people see this move towards salaried employee physicians as a bad thing, but my sense is that most millenials expect this kind of work/life balance and predictability from a career.

I've also never seen any data showing that a male and female physician doing the exact same job make different amounts of money. I think the reported salaries usually reflect the fact that male physicians are more likely to have a lower-wage or non-working spouse than a female who is more keen to work less hours or take on less responsibilities to spend more time with children. If anyone has any data proving this wrong, please post, but these demographic differences always seemed a compelling explanation of the reported earnings difference to me.

Actually, I've heard of male OB-GYNs being offered lower starting salaries than their female counterparts because they are less in demand and take longer to fill their appointment books when first hired.

Also, while medicine is still predominately male, I'm looking at the long term, such as through 2044 (at which point I will certainly be retired.)

 

[ace12345]

Actually, I've heard of male OB-GYNs being offered lower starting salaries than their female counterparts because they are less in demand and take longer to fill their appointment books when first hired.

Also, while medicine is still predominately male, I'm looking at the long term, such as through 2044 (at which point I will certainly be retired.)

I have two quick questions that I am hoping you can answer:

1) When you say relatively low-paying, what do you mean? How much would the finances of medicine need to decrease to push people away? If someone wants to singularly make a ton of money, there are already routes to do so outside of medicine. Yet medicine is the last somewhat large field that is still a somewhat high-paying "service" occupation (There are probably some exceptions so please forgive me for those, but certainly things like teaching are not longer even mildly lucrative). What would have to happen to push people away whom are attracted to these attributes? I'm thinking it would need to be a large drop financially.

2) Both competition to get in and COA to attend medical school are the highest they have ever been. Don't these fly in the face of salaries going down? Additionally, fewer and fewer women are attracted to the idea of lower pay/lower hours occupations (I'd suspect chief among these women are those currently going into medicine. Just to get into medical school you need be an extremely driven person that's ready to work, regardless of gender). Male or female, the amount of training and debt that it takes to become an attending is enormous and those making it that far will want to make some sort of substantial income. Thus how could salaries, for example, go down when many of us will still be paying off our loans in 2044 (Sort of a joke....mostly not)?

 

[jared_the_great]

I took ten years off after undergrad before applying. That wasn't because I thought I had better things to do or wanted to bolster my app. It was mainly driven by financial necessity, and I wished it wasn't necessary.

That said, though, I found those ten years incredibly useful. I learned a lot, grew a lot, changed my perspectives, experienced struggles and tragedies, and figured out exactly why other careers weren't ultimately going to cut it for me. As I'm writing secondaries, I'm trying to imagine what it would have been like straight out of undergrad. I would have been straining to come up with life experiences that were at all interesting. I would have been spinning things to sound impressive, whereas I now feel no need to spin or exaggerate anything.

I don't think time off should be necessary, but it can definitely make it easier to seem genuinely unique.

 

[LizzyM]

I have two quick questions that I am hoping you can answer:

1) When you say relatively low-paying, what do you mean? How much would the finances of medicine need to decrease to push people away? If someone wants to singularly make a ton of money, there are already routes to do so outside of medicine. Yet medicine is the last somewhat large field that is still a somewhat high-paying "service" occupation (There are probably some exceptions so please forgive me for those, but certainly things like teaching are not longer even mildly lucrative). What would have to happen to push people away whom are attracted to these attributes? I'm thinking it would need to be a large drop financially.

2) Both competition to get in and COA to attend medical school are the highest they have ever been. Don't these fly in the face of salaries going down? Additionally, fewer and fewer women are attracted to the idea of lower pay/lower hours occupations (I'd suspect chief among these women are those currently going into medicine. Just to get into medical school you need be an extremely driven person that's ready to work, regardless of gender). Male or female, the amount of training and debt that it takes to become an attending is enormous and those making it that far will want to make some sort of substantial income. Thus how could salaries, for example, go down when many of us will still be paying off our loans in 2044 (Sort of a joke....mostly not)?

You need a lesson in economics if you think that incomes can not decline if some folks have huge loans. Ask the glut of law school grads. How does the competition to get in and the cost of attendance have any relevance to salaries going down? The competition and the COA to earn a sociology degree at an Ivy is high but that doesn't mean the salaries of sociology grads from those schools must go up. The logic of this statement baffles me.

What if starting salaries stagnate and lose about 3% per year over the next 10 yrs? Would making 30% less in 2024 than the graduating residency class of 2014 seem like a big drop? It would basically be a stagnation of wages (no 2-3% increase for inflation per year for stating salaries). It will be like putting a frog in cold water and slowly raising the temperature. Slow and steady, you boil to death. I think that it would make medicine less attractive to the college graduating class of 2024 than medicine is to the college class of 2014.

 

[ace12345]

I took ten years off after undergrad before applying. That wasn't because I thought I had better things to do or wanted to bolster my app. It was mainly driven by financial necessity, and I wished it wasn't necessary.

That said, though, I found those ten years incredibly useful. I learned a lot, grew a lot, changed my perspectives, experienced struggles and tragedies, and figured out exactly why other careers weren't ultimately going to cut it for me. As I'm writing secondaries, I'm trying to imagine what it would have been like straight out of undergrad. I would have been straining to come up with life experiences that were at all interesting. I would have been spinning things to sound impressive, whereas I now feel no need to spin or exaggerate anything.

I don't think time off should be necessary, but it can definitely make it easier to seem genuinely unique.

I completely agree with this, and really found it the strength to being a semi-nontrad myself. In the group interviews I attended with traditional applicants, there was - and I apologize if this comes off arrogant, I do not mean it to be - simply no comparison between their examples for various questions and my own/that of other non-trads.

I've seen that many disagree with this already, but I'm sorry college is not real life. It's not even close. My idea of a tough time in college was studying for a big exam or writing a long paper. Outside of college, those were the things I did in my free time.

That said, everyone should do what is best for them. Should taking time off be a prerequisite? Probably not. Can you learn a lot and develop yourself during that time? Absolutely.

 

[ace12345]

You need a lesson in economics if you think that incomes can not decline if some folks have huge loans. Ask the glut of law school grads. How does the competition to get in and the cost of attendance have any relevance to salaries going down? The competition and the COA to earn a sociology degree at an Ivy is high but that doesn't mean the salaries of sociology grads from those schools must go up. The logic of this statement baffles me.

What if starting salaries stagnate and lose about 3% per year over the next 10 yrs? Would making 30% less in 2024 than the graduating residency class of 2014 seem like a big drop? It would basically be a stagnation of wages (no 2-3% increase for inflation per year for stating salaries). It will be like putting a frog in cold water and slowly raising the temperature. Slow and steady, you boil to death. I think that it would make medicine less attractive to the college graduating class of 2024 than medicine is to the college class of 2014.

Thank you for your response. As for the baffling statement, I was being naive that somehow the finances would change as supply and demand of physicians changes, but obviously less students would need to be applying for that to be the case (Which it is not). I was thinking more about applicant now than in the future.

Regardless, hopefully those of us going in this year don't boil to death I guess!

 

[ridethecliche]

I never said that and it isn't in the #1 post in this thread. I don't know what definition is used at Yale.

Apologies. Someone said it for Northwestern.

This is the #1 confusion that I notice from people who are against gap years (which is a weird position in the first place, but I'll get to that). Your life does not "begin" when you start medical school, or when you finish your medical training. Let's call this what it is, you're choosing to pursue other opportunities before you pursue medical school.

What people do on their gap years is up to them. Some of them get graduate degrees, some of them work, some of them travel, some of them do some combination of these, that's up to the person. No one can tell me that I didn't benefit from my 2 years after graduation or, crazier still, that I'm somehow worse off because of it. It's not for you to judge what a person considers a worthwhile use of their time. Similarly, it's not for us to judge people who have chosen not to take any time off. That's their prerogative. However, at the end of the day, medical schools choose who they do and do not want to be a part of their class. It seems that many of them appreciate what students who have taken time off bring to the table. Evidently they've done well enough that schools continue to accept these students that benefit from certain qualities that they value. Maybe that's maturity, maybe that's experience, maybe that's knowledge and practical skills--I'm sure it varies.

It's up to the applicant to decide if they want to go straight to medical school before graduating, or if they want to take time to explore other things. My point is that I hope more people will take these statistics as permission or even encouragement to take their time and develop a bit before committing to a 7-11 year training process which can beat them down and grind them up. I found it to be one of the best decisions I've ever made. No one is forcing students to do this, in fact, most of the pressures are to do the exact opposite. Even though my parents were asking me why I wasn't going straight through or my friends were already delightedly getting geared up to become future doctors while I would just be "falling behind", and I was full of worry and doubt myself, I stuck with it. Hell of a good decision, I hope more people get a chance to enjoy this.

My point is more that the issue with college admissions is going to filter to grad school. It has already begun.

People are going to start doing gap years to do things they enjoy (possibly), but also boost up their app. There will be a new normal. That's my point.

Admittedly, as some have pointed out, adcoms judge students based on what they've done given where they are, but what happens when more people have more experiences as they've been out longer? They're going to be more qualified by default as a product of having more time to have done more meaningful things on average.

Oh I found it. About 54% of applicants and 52% of matriculants are female. Very interesting. I don't want to make too many assumptions about why some of these classes are skewed even more than that towards females, but the adcoms must be seeing something in them they're not seeing as much of from males....

I see what you did there?

 

[LMBLBM]

Equal opportunity is such a complex subject. Equal opportunity does not necessarily means equal outcomes. However, the best way to study equality is to study outcomes. I guess forcing equal outcomes is not fair but blaming unequal outcome to unique traits of certain groups (being female, being URM) is worse.

 

[Goro]

I concur with my learned colleague.

I remember about a decade ago one of my clinical colleagues presented a journal club article that showed male/female admission trends for medical school were on such a slope as to make the entire US physician population significantly female by the 2040s. I'll probably be dead by then but the rest of you will have to figure out what to make of this.

What I am saying is that 30 years from now,it is possible that undergrads looking for careers will not choose "medicine" because it will be a relatively low paying career dominated by women. Some specialties may still be predominately male (urology will be the last hold out) but most undergrads will not see things at that level of detail. Medicine is already a low paying, female-dominated profession in Russia.

 

[Euxox]

This is the #1 confusion that I notice from people who are against gap years (which is a weird position in the first place, but I'll get to that). Your life does not "begin" when you start medical school, or when you finish your medical training. Let's call this what it is, you're choosing to pursue other opportunities before you pursue medical school.

I completely agree that life does not begin when you finish med school/residency/fellowship, but it is a lot easier to justify gap years in your early twenties, when your responsibilities are at most feeding yourself and putting a roof over your head, than it is in your late forties, when you need to worry about paying for your mortgage, your car loan, your kids' college savings accounts, and -- because you've only been an attending for ten years -- your own college/med school loans. A primary-care attending in this position might have to work 1.5 times the hours his or her colleagues work to be able to live a comfortable lifestyle. That means less time to spend on hobbies, less time to spend with the spouse, less time to spend with the kids.

No, two gap years aren't going to hurt anyone, but by years four or five, it's important to realize that deciding whether to take a gap year isn't as simple as asking yourself if you could grow with another year in industry/research/service/traveling. Life isn't about finishing med school, but it also isn't about maximizing growth and personal development in one decade (the twenties) while forgetting about the others.

 

[jjtheairplane]

I attended an Ivy for undergrad and am taking gap years. I was going to get a PhD and am going MD instead. However, many of my peers who were definitely going to apply to medical school took a gap year or two.

Most that I knew did research (but maybe that's just because I was doing research, so I knew about them), but it was because they really enjoyed it. A few of them got Masters, some domestically, some in the UK. They were doing traveling and a lot of other prestigious, fulfilling stuff. Talking to them, I never felt like they were grinding. They were on top of their crap. They'd already taken the MCATs, got good GPAs, had ECs, and publications. They were doing things related to medicine that they found fulfilling and truly enjoyed. Yes, it made their applications stronger. However, they would have gotten into medical school without taking time off, too.

Especially for top tier medical schools, the gap year isn't really for you to play catch up, especially if your intention during undergrad was to attend medical school. It might be a time for you to figure out your interests or investigate them further. Possibly a really incredibly opportunity came up, and you don't mind taking a year off from school to go take advantage of it.

Not so sure about the bolded part. Gap years can give significant time to people who are disciplined to improve their GPA (grad) and, depending on the number of years (2+) MCAT - it allows at least a full year for mcat devotion rather than studying a few months during school/summer. If you considered taking a gap year from the get-go, then it makes class and work load/applying process less stress free as well.

Also, I have seen the vast majority of gap-year people take it to do research and get published. They don't love it (maybe enjoy at times, but honestly, most tell me its for their app). Speaking majority-wise, in my experience those taking gap-years have their parents pay for things while they go traveling/running marathons/etc. I'm sure there are many who support themselves, but probably far less than than those who don't.

 

[Lawpy]

Not so sure about the bolded part. Gap years can give significant time to people who are disciplined to improve their GPA (grad) and, depending on the number of years (2+) MCAT - it allows at least a full year for mcat devotion rather than studying a few months during school/summer. If you considered taking a gap year from the get-go, then it makes class and work load/applying process less stress free as well.

Also, I have seen the vast majority of gap-year people take it to do research and get published. They don't love it (maybe enjoy at times, but honestly, most tell me its for their app). Speaking majority-wise, in my experience those taking gap-years have their parents pay for things while they go traveling/running marathons/etc. I'm sure there are many who support themselves, but probably far less than than those who don't.

I agree with this except the MCAT part. A full year of studying is a waste of time that'll only lead to burnout